There's more than just the fate of Libya's former leader at stake
With the collapse of Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime in Libya, attention has naturally turned to bringing the former strongman to justice.
In late June, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant, citing the dictator's crimes against humanity. Self-styled foreign policy "realists" responded with angst, predicting the specter of prosecution would only prolong the conflict, by eliminating the possibility of a negotiated settlement. The Internationalist rejected this alleged peace-justice trade-off, predicting the warrant would only hasten the collapse of his political support. (Future historians will have to sift through the record to see who was right).
'Global' War on Terror: Multilateral Achievements
Will Assad Now Bow to Allied Pressure?
Calling for Regime Change in Libya
EU Statement on Syria
The hot debate now is whether the ICC is the proper venue for holding Qaddafi to account--or whether a national, Libyan-owned judicial proceeding should take precedence. Here's one vote for transferring Qaddafi to The Hague as soon as he's apprehended.
Whether domestic or international tribunals are better at delivering justice and accountability for atrocities remains a bone of contention. Over the past two decades, the international community has experimented with different models. These include international tribunals, including the ICC and, beforehand, the ad hoc International Criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR); various domestic tribunals, such as Argentina's for crimes committed during the "dirty war"; and a variety of "hybrid" institutions, such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone (which relied on judges from Uganda, Northern Ireland, and Samoa but occurred in the country) and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal for Cambodia (which had a mixture of national and international judges).